No Marriage In Heaven

Ok, so what is the basis for this page? It is commonly accepted that there will be no marriage after the resurrection, but it is also commonly taught amongst rapture cult doctrines that after the second coming of Christ the christians will breed like rabbits and then all those who don't agree with Christ will be defeated in the final war with satan after he is released from the bottomless pit.

Now, we know there is something called the "Marriage of the Lamb" in christian doctrine, in which Christ plays the role of the bridegroom, and the people of God the bride. We also have the old testament foreshadowing of the new covenant, which serves as an example, and also the new testament spiritual reality which serves as the fulfilment of that shadow. It is true though that one can not argue that marriages today are null and void because "only Christ's marriage has any spiritual reality." what God has joined together let man not separate;

Now the verses;

Show that when a man leaves his parents for the greater love for his wife they shall establish a family, and that bond is family between husband and wife, as it was between 'father and mother' and 'son or daughter'; but it is a bond that establishes family, and is of a different kind than the tie of family DNA. It is also a bond that can not be broken.

However Paul writes of the law, (which permitted divorce), and freedom from marriage upon death;

However the law does permit divorce, and allows the bond of marriage to be broken. The marriage of Christ to His bride is never broken since Christ is raised and His bride will be raised in the resurrection. The marriage in this sense is final, so one could relate the timing of the marriage of the lamb to the resurrection itself.

There are two accounts of Christ Himself teaching on marriage in the gospels I include here.

Now attempting to draw Christ into a discussion or debate on the law was the attempt of the Sadducees in a classic display of the dialectic, to draw Christ out on and away from the absolute truth. There are always two ways to respond to this attack; one is with a truthful statement that completely negates both sides of the question as invalid, and the other keeps the question open, walking through the hot coals and comes out "clean the other side". We will say the former collapses the dialectic, and the latter keeps it open. The former statement of Christ's choosing (which is near always the case) is simply put: "Yes, there is lasting marriage in heaven, it is my own to my bride - my people chosen in Israel." The latter question is that marriage is good, and then the nature of the question must be considered. Only If there is a response that may keep the dialectic open at all, (And it is my experience that there always is; for into these things the "angels desire to look into." These angels pull us back from the brink when we reason on the devices of satan too long. I find it implausible marriage is such a device.)

Now the new testament fulfilment of this law in question would seem to state that Christ is owed seed by His bride and brethren, which must spread news of Christ (as to the coheirs) to His brethren, (brothers and sisters). Christ is alive in this marriage, and has not left His bride unlike in the letter of the law related to by Paul above, which has separated the husband from the remaining wife.

However; If the law foreshadows accurately, What is the right by the law of the husband to seed by His wife, by the line of His family? If the husband is owed seed on earth only; there is none due in heaven after if marriage is annulled, unless of course the child of the widow is simply there to foreshadow ourselves as heirs of Christ. The child is heir to the deceased, and is "His Son." His heir. But if marriage foreshadow that of Christ, then Christ's marriage is of faith and hope and His glory whilst ours are all failures. Unless no marriage ever fails to last eternity and Christ's is the crown of them all. Which is better?

If there is marriage in heaven, for that is the question raised by the argument, then clearly the deceased husband (any of the seven) is owed an earthly heir to his wife by his family. For the two are one flesh which is a family bond - and if the marriage would not continue in heaven, then that bond would not give a right under the law for the deceased to be given an heir; His line would be struck out. It would be better for his land to return to his next of kin, and not an heir because if only the family bond remains then to have a brothers wife is purely incest.

But then, it is uncertain if say the first husband is raised in the resurrection (the Sadducess held no such belief) that his is the right, for he is departed and none can state he is saved, since all are lawbreakers and fall short of salvation under the law. So by a simple count until the seventh of the brothers dies, it is unclear as to whom the right belongs in the resurrection - for all of the brothers took the wife of the first as their own spouse and all are sinners falling short of salvation and eternal life - who is left alive to have the right?

The truth of the matter is that the Sadducees were convinced there is no resurrection, and that all the law was made for men in this world.

It is also true that the law was made to be kept, for whosoever shall do those things in the law will live in them. The law does not assume that anyone will break the law and live, so there is no assumption on God's part that the marriage right of the first brother to heirs is not strong enough to provide Him with an heir from the second to the seventh brother, and for it to be his right to call his wife his own wife in the resurrection. The law assumes its self to be kept faithfully as Christ kept it faithfully. Christ's marriage lasts forever not because He kept the law but because the law points to Christ.

So, there is the possibility within the law that marriage lasts into the resurrection for Christ, and that marriage rights last into the resurrection at the least when it comes to heirs. Christ's answer that collapses the dialectic is such that His heirs are heirs in the spirit, as are the angels. They are in receipt of eternal life and do not marry into His marriage of the resurrection by their own choice or by virtue of their family descendency, as by the children of this world. God's choice as to whom He considers worthy is the only qualifying virtue for this marriage that actually is Christ's own, that we be found coheirs with Him in His marriage (of the Lamb).

We have the verses Christ spoke on divorce;

If marriage from the beginning was meant never to be annulled; then we are not worthy of it if it does not last; We have a husband whom has promised never to put us away, but we will be His people and He shall be our God. (to paraphrase.) If it is truly better not to marry at all because of the possibility of adultery - why assume in marriage there will be adultery? There is none permitted in the marriage of the Lamb.

Jesus finishes with God as not a God of the dead but of the living; If the living still have family ties but not marriage, then It would appear that to be called the sons of God is a stronger salvation than to be the bride of Christ. But God's marriage is not lessened by our small part in it - for God is not a God of fulfilling failures, but of everlasting success. There are successful marriages, and God has no need for our marriages to fail so His will stand upright as the only one marriage that ever works. The law points to Christ only but marriage is framed in correctness by God's laws, it can not be said that our marriages foreshadow the resurrection; but that marriage is worth making new to show the resurrection is kept faithfully.

So If Jesus' answer was to the selection criteria for the resurrection and not on whether marriage would last into the resurrection, He stated plainly enough that He, whom the law foreshadows has a marriage that lasts into the resurrection and beyond, and that physical blood ties are no qualifying criteria for selection as children of God - hence their argument was without merit. He did not say that we were not made as one blood in Christ, one family of God that have equal share in eternal life.

I am to understand that were it possible for a man to conceive of the span of time that eternal life promises and submit to Christ as a servant, then one can adequately comprehend a marriage to a wife that lasts forever also. Were such vows to be legal in the resurrection, they are no harder to make than admitting eternal life is not too much time to be given, or otherwise we have a denial of the blessings of God that are possible.

So why then would the law permit the wife to take heirs to her dead husband on earth and not to wait until after death? Well, the law is made for man, and a widow waiting a long time in penury without any family support is a harsh sentence that no husband would stomach his widow to be forced to bear. That is why it is equitable for it to be his heir, and not anothers. The wife is not family property as would Onan's outlook pan out. Neither is she a brothers wife by the same token - that it is for the sake of the seed of his departed brother. For the law states it is to "raise up seed unto him" as we are called in spirit to raise up seed unto Christ by spreading the seed of God (Christ) to bring to Him other coheirs with us in the resurrection.

Nowhere does it say that at the second coming any marriage but that of the lamb will continue. Raising up children raises up the possibility of disobedience, even if marriages require healing with children, there is no scripture for it. We are not called to breed like rabbits, but I am also certain that marriage itself is not a failure - we are the failures that can not for the life of us get it right for eternity in anything other than a gift of life - for who does not find life addictive if it alone is made well?

Likewise, only God the Father can grant eternal life to His children and know the outcome of it. - If Jesus' marriage were the crown of all marriages, if they were all to continue and any future children be blessed without any curse as we should be free also in the resurrection, there is a greater blessing of thanksgiving due for God in that. But God may be justified as content with only those he has chosen rather than those He has made, (as should be evident) and although all things are possible for God, there is no invisible scripture to state that because the earth is made to be inhabited, it must be inhabited by many more.

Would Christ intentionally obfuscate on the issue of marriage? No, he would not. The opposing nature of the Sadducees' dialectic assumptions; that of sin within the resurrection and physical blood lines deriving the same inheritance of eternal life are kept open by one statement. It is God's right to reward as He sees fit in His gift of eternal life, and it is not for any man to give. Christ came to receive to God those that His Father had given Him. Of that He testified, but he did not preclude the consistency of marriage itself. If there are greater blessings awaiting us all, why bless Christ with one for mere babes? Is it for us or for Him? It is certainly for Him. Always.

Christ's marriage persists because it IS the resurrection, ours would persist if it were modelled on the resurrection, but a man is not granted life because of marriage. That is the answer of Christ to the Sadducees who had it upside down. But is marriage a gift to all God's children living in the resurrection? It is, but in the resurrection itself. But if the resurrection be marriage by slight of hand, then shouldnt life contain marriage if it is given in full in the resurrection? We have reduced to a circular argument -- albeit one that assumes that the gift of eternal life justifies marriages made new - but there is only one husband named in the scriptures - Jesus Christ. Christ's statement ""I make all things new", Is not the same as "I make all things new for you." It is made for His pleasure only. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. It is most likely true He has already attended in person His last wedding ever. He didn't seem too upset by it. In that sense, if we have greater blessings to fill such a void, the words at Cana "But you have saved the best for last." should ring out stronger than any earthly joy mankind has ever physically experienced.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page